Release Your Inner Critic

  There are generally 3 types of critic: The Professional Critic, The Armchair Critic, and the Social Critic. The word critic is usually associated with Professional Critics, or critics of pop culture – movies, music, and literature. They offer their opinion, which is presumably (hopefully) tempered with experience and refined sensibilities, as a means to make a living. While they may irritate artists, particularly when their criticisms aren't flattering, they do serve a useful purpose by helping the rest of us to avoid the “fluff” that makes up a large portion of pop culture, allowing us to spend our precious leisure time appreciating the art that truly deserves our attention.

  Then, there are of course the Armchair Critics. These are regular people, who mostly enjoy criticism for its own sake, and who do not serve any useful purpose. While this type may think their tastes are worth sharing, this is, in my experience, typically not the case. These are people who, rather than helping to elevate the tastes of others, criticize more as a means of making themselves feel better about their own lack of any discernible talent. It is always easier to criticize than to create, and the reason this group is particularly irritating to most people is that all they offer is criticism, rarely constructive, and without putting forth any better alternatives. This essentially boils down to useless whining.

  Finally, there is the Social Critic, the sort that I'm talking about. Overall, They are not Professional, as they only occasionally concern themselves with pop culture, and are rarely paid for their observations. Nor are they Armchair Critics, because they are, as a rule, genuinely informed about the subject matter, and do offer constructive criticism, paired very often with alternative visions of how things might be. The Social Critic, as the name implies, is concerned with issues that run deeper than most of those addressed by pop culture – politics, education, crime, religion and other social issues. I believe that they are the most useful, as they are most needed in order to have a functional and vibrant democracy. Unfortunately, they are also the very type that is most lacking in many societies today. This is the sort of critic I aspire to be, and encourage others to become – one who can recognize deficiencies in our policies, and through public criticism of these flaws, spur the kind of debate that in turn stimulates change.

  Critics are important because discussion and debate are core components of any evolving society. Without these, societies cease adapting to the times, fall into dogmatic repetition of old mistakes, and ultimately crumble from within. Fear of criticism is the ultimate weakness of dictators and despots for this very reason, and the reason why such regimes all ultimately fail. Journalists used to play the role of Social Critic, but in this they are increasingly losing their backbone, afraid of being excluded should they ask difficult questions. The competitive nature of journalism makes this an inevitable problem unless every journalist sticks to their principles, but it seems clear that principles are less important in journalism today than they were in the past...one look at FOX News should be ample evidence of that. Partisan politics is taking priority over objective truth in many cases, which results in journalism barely worthy of the title, and public discussion that solves nothing because it asks all the wrong questions. This is where the new Social Critic comes in...the blogger, the private observer of the public sphere, the voice from the crowd. With no career or political agenda to advance, such “citizen journalists” can be objective in a way that many professional journalists can't, and honest in a way that public figures often shy away from. Political correctness has no place in either a meaningful debate or an interesting blog, and this is but one of the many reasons why the internet is a unique and powerful tool to promote free speech.

  Of course, the internet is full of Armchair Critics...or “trolls”, as they are better known online. It is human nature to voice an opinion even if it is loosely informed, and to avoid admitting a mistake at all costs. This type of discourse dominates the internet, because the anonymity it offers lends itself to obnoxious behaviour. However, on some level we all value the truth, and for some of us this is far more important than getting our two cents in at every opportunity. When we place value and emphasis on objective truth, and when important issues are discussed without anonymity, we can use criticism to burn through the bad ideas, and collaborate to find new and better ones.

  Criticism indeed has some negative connotations because it is essentially making fun of bad ideas. Some ideas, however, deserve to be made fun of. We have to get past the idea that we should never offend anyone, as if being offended gives us some sort of special right or bargaining chip with which to hold the rest of society hostage to our opinions. Sometimes the only way to break down bad ideas is to relentlessly criticize them, regardless of how offended this may make the people who try to prop them up. The Flat Earth, Earth as the centre of the universe, slavery – these are all bad ideas that fell under a relentless assault from informed critics. Ideas which were once considered sacred or core philosophies have been tossed into the dustbin of history, and rightly so, because enough people spoke out against them. Bad ideas often cloak themselves in a layer of righteousness in order to deflect criticism, but being aware of this tactic can help us to immunize ourselves against it. If everyone simply asked questions, relentlessly, where questions are merited, our society could rid itself of bad ideas in no time at all.

  If you desire a life in a free society, one which is modern, just and well-off, being an informed Social Critic is the most productive way to make that happen. Social injustice happens everywhere, all the time, but where leaders know that the people will hold their feet to the fire it happens a lot less. An empowered, educated, and above all vocal population are the ultimate antidote to oppression and bad ideas, and a fertile ground where new ideas can grow. Don't be afraid to be offensive if required – if you're right, people will still respect you, and if they don't, then they're not worth worrying about anyway. In the end, you will accomplish far more and influence many more people if you speak your mind than if you stay silent. There is plenty of time for silence in the grave.  

The Closet Socialist

  I'm willing to go out on a limb, and bet that you actually like socialism more than you might think. That's right, the closet Socialist isn't me, it's you. Frankly, I'm not in the closet about anything.

  In an episode of his show Real Time, comedian Bill Maher spoke at length on the the subject not too long ago. There, he made a simple yet important point: if people actually knew more about what Socialism implies, they would probably realize that it's not a dirty word. It is, in fact, one of the more successful schools of political thought, with the potential to help take our emerging global society to the next level. Let me tell you why in a little more detail.

  In a nutshell, Socialism is simply about sharing risks, responsibility and goals; by working together, we reduce our collective risk, share the collective burden of our responsibilities, and achieve mutual goals that would be far beyond the reach of any one of us working alone. It's about sharing expenses, so we all pay less in times of trouble, and about getting more bang from our collective tax dollars. Smart countries understand this, and although they don't all call it Socialism, to the extent that they do these things, that's exactly what it is. Here in Japan, where I've lived for some time, I see Socialism at work all the time. It's a very collectivist culture, and as such, they understand that working together effectively is a great strength in a society. As a small island nation, Japan has made such a huge mark on the world and in the Pacific Rim in particular because it knows all about teamwork. There is a sense here that everyone watches out for one another, and working toward a common purpose, and this is a powerful motivator. The workforce here is willing to make sacrifices in the name of the common good, and as such are capable of great feats of productivity and innovation relative to their numbers and resources. This is the very kind of motivator needed in any society that ever aspires to call itself “great”.

  In Western society, and in the US in particular, the opposite mentality is often popularized: individuality. The idea is that it's better to be able to stand on your own, fend for yourself...the rugged individualist, the self-made man, these are iconic images in Western society. But unfortunately, the entire concept is a lie. On my more cynical days, I think it was a lie constructed to sell more cigarettes and blue jeans, but there is also something deeper to it than that. During the Cold War, even though the West had many of the same social practices as the Communists, there was a practical need to differentiate itself from its ideological adversary. It chose to do so largely by emphasizing the collectivist/individualist dichotomy. In the poisonous and distrustful political atmosphere of the time, any policy or person with even a whiff of Communist on it became anathema, even if the policy was hugely beneficial or the person a well-intentioned genius. Socialism became an unfortunate casualty of that time. The stale remnants of this Cold War mentality linger even still, far beyond any usefulness, hindering our progress, and it is well past time to dispel them.

  Individualism is a lie because we all, to a greater or lesser extent, live in a society, and depend upon that society for a great many things. While a skilled outdoorsman might claim to be able to survive without the rest of society for a time, he still grew up in a society, got his education as a school paid for by tax dollars, received medical care at a community hospital, and drives the roads paid for by his fellow citizens. While there are those that complain about paying taxes, they nevertheless enjoy the benefits that tax dollars provide, and complain loudly when such amenities are taken away. Living in modern societies, we are products of a social system, like it or not, and the quality of our lives depends very heavily upon just how seriously our particular government takes its social responsibilities. Contrary to the beliefs of some, it is not the job of the government to merely concoct onerous legislation and collect tax money. The most critical responsibilities of any government revolve around how well it administers its tax income to provide essential services. Any government anywhere is not worthy of leadership if it cannot provide for the health and welfare of its people. The popular counter-argument, of course, is that the free market will fill whatever gaps the government can't. Some might go so far as to argue that the government shouldn't be involved in social services at all, leaving even hospitals, prisons and fire departments in the hands of private enterprise. I would struggle to think of any worse idea than this, and for an immense plethora of reasons. However, since I want to keep this under 10 pages, I'll just address the most important ones. 

  Firstly, private enterprise is not looking out for you, and it never will be. Any for-profit organization will share this flaw – the profit motive inevitably poisons its motivations, and corporations have proven time and time again that they are willing to sacrifice quality, people's health, public welfare, public resources, the environment, and just about anything else in order to pad their profit margins. No matter how well regulated, businesses are in it for their shareholders, and if they think they can get away with cutting corners, that is exactly what they will do. In regards to essential services, where you want to ensure quality, a bureaucracy may not always be perfect, but at least with government oversight you are eliminating the profit motive from the equation. Government agencies still can (and do, in many cases) make a profit, but when we're talking about educating our children, safeguarding our health, maintaining our critical infrastructure or protecting us when we sleep, profit should never be the primary motivator. In a socialist system, it isn't.

  Secondly, the free market is not perfectly self-correcting. This is a myth that many conservatives seem to believe with a sort of religious zeal, but it is simply not true. The worst financial disasters of the century, including the recent recession from which we are just now recovering, were perpetuated by financial organizations and corporations that were allowed to run largely without any serious regulation. Left to their own devices, they did not create a perfectly fair and balanced system – they engineered a system that robbed people of their life savings in order to line the pockets of an elite few. Due to weak legislation, they were free to manipulate the markets, exploiting loopholes and nearly bringing the world economy to its knees in a staggering display of self-interest, cronyism and corruption. Afterwards, these same organizations accepted taxpayer money in the form of bailouts, from which, I might add, they saw fit to pay their chief executives salaries that could only be described as grotesque and embarrassing, given their very recent and very staggering incompetence. In short, this does not sound like a self-correcting system to me. Government oversight and regulation are how the people ensure their rights are not trampled on by corporations, and the moment these regulations are relaxed, as we have seen, the trampling almost immediately begins. In a socialist system, the government does not dictate how the market works, as many may think it does. Rather, it harnesses its innovative power to maximize the market's potential, via tax incentives and similar programs, while mitigating the harm a free market may cause, such as damage to the environment or to public health. Common sense, right?

  Finally, I would argue that too much choice is a bad thing. While the free market is admittedly great at providing consumers with options, these options are not always necessary, or different from one another in any but the most cosmetic ways. While some choice is certainly desirable, surveys and other market research often find that consumers are actually overwhelmed by the huge array of choices that they can find in most Western markets. This is a large part of why Western markets produce such gargantuan amounts of waste – with so many options, many simply get tossed aside. It also creates a dangerous false mindset that there must be limitless supplies of everything available in order to produce such options. This is turn makes people waste more and conserve less – pretty much the exact opposite of what we need if we are to have any hope of combating climate change. What we need are goods that are functional, sustainably produced, easily recyclable, and long lasting. The market has demonstrated (ad nauseum) that it won't do this without regulation. Anything that costs a bit extra up front, even if it may pay off in the long term for both society and the business itself, is generally a no-go. The regulation of the means production, while perhaps a touchy subject due to its “Commie” overtones, is actually a very viable argument if we ever hope to reign in our society's rampant consumption and waste. Perhaps, with the advent of 3-D printing, consumers will be able to bring the means of production home, making exactly what they need exactly when they need it. By encouraging this technology, government could bypass mass producers entirely, and even put the worst environmental offenders out of business by eroding their market. This is socialized production, and to me, a very elegant solution to a number of problems at once. Similarly, subsidies and other means of government encouragement could also to socialize energy production, with solar panels on every home, making the grid much more diffuse, clean, stable and resistant to natural disasters. This is already widely practised in Japan, and with great success – it probably even saved lives after the devastating earthquake and tsunami in 2011.

  So we all, in some way, benefit from socialist principles. In essence, it is strength in numbers. When you think about it, this is really all that society is in the first place, so it does baffle me a little how we got to the place where some of us actually ridicule socialism. Whenever people take the time to understand and dispel preconceptions, it's not even a very hard sell; most people find that somewhere, deep down, they actually supported socialism all along, and all they needed was a little push to come out of the closet.

Decentralization - Reinventing 21st Century Society

  Society has a duty to change - if it doesn't, history demonstrates very effectively how quickly a society can stagnate. Systems designed to handle the demands of one century are inevitably incapable of handling the demands of the next, be they material or social, and this will only become more true as time goes on, given that technology has accelerated (and will likely continue to accelerate) in its rate of advance. As advances in one field compound and magnify advances in others, as improvements in communication increase the rate at which this cross-pollination can happen, and as our global research and development base reaches historically unprecedented proportions, we will see our lives transform increasingly rapidly. Examining the rate at which computer processing power has increased over the past century provides an excellent metaphor for this type of advance – doubling every two years, as Moore's Law accurately predicted it would, means that it is undergoing exponential growth. This type of increase is sometimes counter-intuitive, as we typically think of growth curves as fluctuating, sloping, and gradual, like the stock market. However, in certain optimal conditions, growth can be explosive. Any system that can regularly double in a given amount of time soon reaches astronomical numbers: 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, 128, 256, 512, 1024, 2048, 4096, 8192, 16384, 32768, 65536, 131072, 262144, 524288, 1048576 – an increase of 1,048,576x in 21 'generations'. This is exactly how our technology is set to advance, and this is why we must be ready to adapt.

  There are many potential ways that we can brace our society for change and uncertainty, but I believe one method in particular, decentralization, merits a closer look. I believe this because it is a time-tested method in the natural world, and there are numerous ways in which it can benefit human society – but most notably, it can help us adapt. Ants are an excellent example of decentralization in nature, and the fact that they are ubiquitous in almost every region of the world demonstrates just how successful this strategy can be. Every ant is capable of performing any task necessary to the colony, and by coordinating effectively, they can accomplish immense tasks with remarkable efficiency, and work with a flexibility that most human societies can only dream of. While decentralization is not a new concept in political circles, it is unfortunately not widely utilized. Why not? Not because a centralized system offers any significant advantages, but because a centralized system means that those in power can more easily stay in power, and funnel resources more efficiently into the hands of a select few. While in the past our societies may have had to rely on centralized leadership to coordinate production, this is in fact no longer true. Many of the tasks that we still assume must be accomplished in a top-down way can now be localized, and done just as efficiently from the bottom up. Moreover, in doing so, we can solve a number of problems at once. Researching this actually blew my mind a little over just how many problems it can solve, and I hope it will have the same effect on you.

  First off, centralized power distribution is a primary driver of environmental destruction. Coal, oil and other fossil fuels are burned in massive plants which then send power along the grid to our homes, but this entire paradigm is now outdated. The technology now exists for each home to generate its own clean power, and thus free itself from both the grid and fossil fuels. In Japan, where I live as I write this, homes were equipped with solar panels in many parts of the country long ago. Because many homes were in remote areas, and because earthquakes here made the likelihood of power outages greater, many chose this method to be energy self-sufficient, and it has worked. More importantly, it worked even before the high-efficiency solar panels that we have today were available, meaning that with current technology, this option is workable anywhere in the world, and at a fraction of the price. Not only will this mean a vast decrease in fossil fuel use, but it will mean a more secure power grid, less susceptible to disaster, or even terrorist attack. The great blackout that occurred in the eastern US and Canada in 2003 because of a cascading failure could never happen again. A decentralized network is a robust network, one which can flexibly adapt to changing power demands, and which would prepare us for virtually any contingency. Excesses can even be fed back into the grid, meaning that instead of paying for power, you could actually make money back. Let that sink in. This is basically a win/win/win; for you, for society, and for the planet. No-brainer, right?

  Food distribution is another key area that should be decentralized, and again for numerous reasons. Efficiency is certainly a key reason – our current system of international shipping is unbelievably, shamefully wasteful, and it's well past time to address this. Because of inefficiencies at various stages of the food chain, half of all the world's food is wasted. Yes, you read it right - HALF, and while many people starve to death every day. It's staggering but it's true, and it should tell us that our current system is badly broken. Furthermore, shipping food consumes vast amounts of fossil fuel, even though many of the foods that are shipped could be easily produced locally. By working to localize our food sources, we would dramatically cut back on waste and CO² emissions, and even reduce the need for preservatives and pesticides. Why are we not doing this already? Vested interests, of course. Food producers are a political force, but this is a battle that can be won at a local level. Many communities are already starting “urban gardens”, converting rooftops, balconies, parks, unused land, and even their front lawns into viable food sources. This is something else that they have subsidized in Japan, with many urban spaces set aside for agriculture, and the extra greenery makes the cities much more livable. Indoor hydroponic farming is another potential solution (pun intended). It's been around in some form for hundreds of years, but now, thanks to the addition of LED lighting and other new technology to the mix, it is becoming incredibly efficient. By controlling every critical factor, indoor farms can now produce crops with factory-like efficiency, and of incredibly high quality. They are also, by merit of being indoors, completely pesticide free. If people embrace this trend and push their politicians into nurturing local markets, we can have cheaper, fresher, more secure food, while cutting waste dramatically. Again, everybody wins - we just have to want it badly enough.

  Finally, the marketplace. Markets used to all be local, or at least regional – global corporations are only a recent invention, but when one stops to examine the handiwork of major transnationals over the last few decades, one eventually wonders why we even allow them to exist at all. Large corporations are the primary drivers behind much of the world's environmental devastation, as they pillage natural resources in a blind rush to satisfy a public made ravenous by their own manipulative advertising, filling landfills with mountains of cheap, disposable goods along the way. This cycle will not end well for the planet - most of us know this, and the ones who deny it are usually selling something. Furthermore, corporations are foremost driven not by the public good, but by the bottom line, and too often the public has suffered as a result. Local markets are the solution. Consumers can change the system by buying locally whenever they can, politicians by creating more opportunities for smaller businesses, and both by divesting from large companies, especially ones that act unethically. Corporations have abused the power that they have accumulated, and it's time society pushed back by hitting them where it hurts - in the wallet. A more localized system is a more socially responsible system, where buyers and sellers can talk face-to-face, and it is one that can generate more sorely-needed local jobs. Corporations have demonstrated that when given free reign and tax breaks, they do not tend to create more jobs, but rather prefer to cut them and centralize, while shipping what jobs they do create to countries with atrocious human rights and where they can pay poverty wages. We should work to end this failed social experiment, and create a more responsible marketplace. Having been raised on corporate capitalism, this is a daunting prospect for many of us, but it can be done, and there are many of us who are already pushing back.

  For our society to adapt efficiently, it must be able to adapt swiftly on a local level, without relying too much on central government. Governments move at a glacial pace, and often in the opposite direction as public opinion, funded as they often are by special interest groups. Like a colony of ants, a collection of small communities can make a monumental difference when working together, even on a national scale, while each simultaneously maintains the ability to provide for itself. This self-sufficiency in turn means that government can spend less time worrying about local issues, and more time ensuring national and international issues are resolved intelligently. Local self-sufficiency translates into overall efficiency, and in the end this will mean more wealth to go around. If we want our standards of living to improve instead of backslide this century without jeopardizing the environment, decentralizing may just be the key. 

On Being Liberal

I realize that my blog is screamingly Liberal, Libertarian, and about as Left as you can go. I fully acknowledge this, and make no pretensions to being neutral as far as politics are concerned. I am confident that I have very good reasons for my beliefs, and when I talk about politics, it's not simply a statement of belief, but rather a slightly editorialized analysis of the facts that I have spent the better part of my life poring over. Social theory is pretty much what I'm all about, and politics, when you boil it down, is really just social theory. So, while everyone is entitled to their political opinion, I think it's fair to say that people who have taken the time to research human psychology and social theory should be taken a little more seriously when talking about politics than people who have not.

I have of course heard the argument that Psychology and Sociology are “soft sciences”, and as such do not tell us anything concrete about how the real world works, but to be blunt, this is usually said by people who have never studied either, and thus have no idea what they're talking about. The social sciences, like any field in science, develop hypotheses based on observations, and then refines these hypotheses over time by conducting tests and gathering real, quantifiable data. While it is difficult to peer inside the human mind with perfect accuracy, we can understand a great deal about what motivates us, what makes us happy, what promotes our well-being in the long term, and these are not trivial questions. These are the type of questions we should be asking if we really care about improving the society we live in, and we should hold politicians accountable when they don't bother to ask these questions, or fail to listen when science provides them with answers. The solutions that are offered by the social sciences do, in fact, provide measurable positive results when applied to the real world, and so allowing ideology to trump sociology is, to me, both unforgivable and irresponsible.

Liberalism is, to me, simply associated with a higher level of scientific literacy, and a better familiarity with the facts. Facts matter - this is just the way the universe works. The world cares little for what we want, but ideology still plays a large role in politics – we vote for the person who makes us feel better, or says the things we want to hear, or who agrees with our opinions. Instead of examining the issues, the facts that surround them, and the interpretation of the facts that shape the platforms of each party, many voters just vote the same way they always have, assuming that their party will get its facts straight. This is, sadly, not always the case. I would go so far as to say it is not even often the case. An extreme example is the Tea Party in the US, which repeatedly uses talking points that are just factually incorrect. They just make things up out of thin air sometimes, because they know that their voter base will not bother to check facts. While this is not quite as pronounced in other countries, it does happen all the time, and if the public made an effort to be better informed, these parties would quickly be out of business. When one jettisons ideology, what one is left with is utilitarianism. What works and what doesn't become the driving questions, and as far as I'm concerned, this is all that politics should concern itself with. Full stop.

It might help at this point to define our terms. Saying 'left' and 'right' can mean different things to different people, so let's clarify exactly what I mean. While there are certain policies that have been claimed by both sides of the political spectrum over the decades, it is nonetheless fair to say that certain policies have been characteristic of each side of the political spectrum in general. As I've mentioned, the left is known for being socially liberal, exemplified by Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau's famous quote: “The state has no business in the bedrooms of the nation.” The right, in contrast, often feels compelled to use the machinery of government to impose social mores. The left, typically, believes in the utility of social institutions, and will fund them as such. The right typically does neither, assuming that the market will fill whatever functions that society requires of it. The left sees social spending as an investment, one that will pay large future dividends. The right tends to ridicule such expenditures as wastes of taxpayer money, and promotes austerity as 'financial responsibility'. The left is focused on the priorities of the lower and middle classes and of individuals, while the right consistently demonstrates how it favors the rich, and the well-being of businesses over the well-being of individuals. None of these statements should be controversial – they are based on the sorts of bills that left and right parties try to pass and on the actions that their politicians take when elected – but it's amazing how confused these issues can become, given how often politicians will say one thing and then do another. To be fair, this happens across the political spectrum, and while I tend to agree more with the platforms put forth by the left, greater accountability would be something that could benefit every political party on Earth. In the end, they have to be judged by what they do, not what they say, and then held accountable if they do something irresponsible.

Now, I think it's worth stepping back and taking a look at the social policies from either end of the political spectrum over the past fifty years, and simply analyzing how well these have played out respectively. Since many of these policies are interrelated, for simplicity I'll divide them into two broader categories: Social Mores, and Social Investment. No ideology, just the facts, what works and what doesn't.

1. Social Mores: There are several areas where social norms have been debated hotly between the right and left, but the top two are most likely sex and drug use. In areas with more liberal policies toward sex, that allow certain forms of prostitution, access to pornography, and so forth, the cases of rape and sexually transmitted disease tend to decrease, and do so dramatically when paired with comprehensive sexual education. In contrast, the more conservative policies that restrict the sex trade simply tend to drive it underground, and where sex education is stigmatized, teenage pregnancies and disease both skyrocket, because people are just too ill-equipped to protect themselves. Abstinence is simply an unrealistic expectation to have of a highly sexually motivated species like our own, and when it is forcibly imposed due to some antiquated cultural stigma, the results are unsurprisingly disappointing. The Drug War also proves how disastrous it is to try and dictate private behaviour – people generally do what they want to do, and trying to force them to act a certain way only breeds resentment, while wasting a lot of money in the process. In areas that have treated drug use as a public health issue, favoring education and prevention over criminalization, rates of abuse have decreased, while governments have saved millions of dollars in tax revenue. In places where the sale of soft drugs like marijuana is taxable, the government actually sees a huge boom in tax income, that can be invested in any number of beneficial social programs. I think, in terms of social mores, the practical advantages of the liberal position should be obvious. On the right many people seem to vote for restrictive policies because they feel it's the "right thing to do", but ironically, these sort of policies lead to even more unnecessary suffering. 

2. Social Investment: In countries that invest in education, the result, shockingly, is a better educated population. This, in turn, has allowed these countries to pull ahead economically, as their citizens can compete globally for jobs on the cutting edge, and often bring that experience back to their home countries later in life, where they reinvest this knowledge. The same “butterfly effect” has been demonstrated with other social programs as well, with dollars invested generating huge returns down the line. Well-managed government programs have demonstrated their effectiveness in managing public health, stimulating small business growth, reducing poverty, and any number of other areas. Conversely, when such national institutions are privatized, the result is equally consistent – corporations, driven by the bottom line, are motivated to cut corners, and as such the quality of such services decreases, often dramatically. Competition, which is supposed to facilitate quality control in the free market, does not work when large corporations are given monopolistic control and a captive market. “Trickle-down”, a theory from the right, in which society helps subsidize the rich so that they may “create jobs”, is now largely proven to be nonsense. In the real world, quite the opposite proves true; investment in the individual, such as a strong minimum wage and strong social support for those who are struggling, creates a stable base for the economy. Workers with more stability and income tend to spend more, which fuels new and existing businesses, allowing business owners and the more wealthy to flourish as well. As it happens, the economy works better when fueled from the bottom up than the top down. Austerity measures, when enforced, choke off this flow of capital through the economy, and for a policy that has so often been put forth, is remarkably ineffective. This is not theory – this is just what happens, and the data shows this very clearly.

This, in a nutshell, is the liberal position, at least as I see it. It's not that we are dogmatic in our beliefs (at least not for the most part), they simply make the most sense, given the available information. The key difference, I think, is the ability on the left to change opinion based on new information. While this ability is not exclusive to the left by any means, I have noticed that it is weighted quite heavily in that direction. I suppose in writing this, my goal is to appeal to those on the right that carry this trait, and who simply vote the way they do out of habit. I would ask you to expose yourself to the facts, and simply be objective about what works, what doesn't, and which policies actually offer the most realistic hope for a better future.  

Playing IS Learning

 Kids are naturally very enthusiastic learners. During the first few years of life, they are constantly exploring, testing their environments, and absorbing information faster than at any other time in their lives. Then, tragically, something happens to change all that. I believe that that something is what we colloquially refer to as “the educational system”.

 The system commonly used in most of the world today - that is, formalized and structured learning in a uniform classroom environment - is accepted in many places as “the right way”, but...is it? If so many young people can be turned off subjects or school entirely by the time they finish high school, then maybe we should fundamentally re-examine the way we approach education. In some places they have, and the results might surprise you.

 Alternative schools that do not follow the traditional model have started popping up in a lot of places. These schools often allow a much more flexible exploration of the material, and learning strategies that are more tailored to each student. Most of us figure out pretty quickly in life that we're all different, but bizarrely it is only recently that we are starting to apply this common knowledge toward how we educate our children. Learning styles and strengths can vary widely from child to child, and so it stands to reason that a one-size-fits-all approach to education will not allow each child to maximize their potential. Alternative schools give the students the freedom to follow their own interests, facilitating and guiding them as they do so. They also provide a wide array of learning materials, so that visual, auditory and “read-and write” learners can all benefit.

 The successful outcomes in these schools demonstrate that alternative approaches can work, and even in some cases surpass expectation. I believe the reason for this is really quite simple: a student only learns as much as their attention span will allow, and the more interesting a class is, the more of the material they will retain, and the more they will be motivated to learn. Successful people in every field are, after all, the ones that have a passion for what they do, and it is this passion that drove them to learn everything they could about that field in the first place. The successful educator is therefore one who can double as an entertainer, and spark a student's curiosity. This curiosity, once it is ignited, will burn within them, and motivate them to learn more on their own than they can ever be coerced into learning otherwise. Just look at how quickly kids master video games, and the endless hours they devote to them – it's because they're fun, and the kids are interested. Now, think about how kids behave when forced into an activity that they have no interest in – lethargic, inattentive, and generally disengaged. Which do you honestly think is a better way to learn?

 To me, playing and learning are virtually the same thing. I'm a lifelong gamer, and so I have a fair bit of experience on this subject. For myself and my friends, there is nothing more intriguing than to learn the rules of a new game, and then, over time, achieve mastery of that game. I remember being told when I was young that games are for kids, a waste of time, and that they “rot your brain”. It seems, however, that my hobby has been vindicated by science. Studies have consistently demonstrated that gaming can sharpen key cognitive skills, including attention allocation, spatial resolution in visual processing, and mental rotation abilities. Many skills can be trained in a relatively short period, and these are skills that can be essential in a number of fields, particularly those predicted to be important in the next century, like science, technology, engineering and mathematics.

 Furthermore, I believe that these benefits can be extended into other areas, by carefully crafting activities designed to both educate and entertain. While we do have certain material to cover as teachers, there is very little that says exactly how we have to teach it. Textbooks are only a guideline, and it is up to us to engage students creatively. I certainly try to do so in the English classroom, and the results are encouraging. Having participated in both “by-the-book” lessons and having personally conducted hundreds of classes centred around “learning activities”, and I can attest that the differences are fairly obvious and dramatic. The most obvious is that the students fall asleep a lot less in the activity-centred lessons, and I'm of the opinion that students generally learn more when they're conscious. I know, it's a bit of a stretch. Secondly, they are for the most part trying to learn, actively striving for understanding, and it's hard to argue that this could ever be a bad thing. While sometimes designing lessons that stimulate students interest may divert from the designated textbook material, maintaining interest should be considered the more important priority in language learning. It is after all a huge undertaking to learn a language, and without enough motivation, there is little likelihood that any worthwhile progress can be made. If “learning exhaustion” sets in, you can teach textbook lessons until you're blue in the face, but it will be a wasted effort.

 Games need not be just games. They can (and do) have real educational value; that's the whole point. Using activities and stimulating material is simply the best way to trick ourselves into learning without ever realizing we are doing so. By making a puzzle out of a learning point, and forcing students to figure it out for themselves, we make this knowledge a prize to be won, and once they see it this way, they will not likely forget it. Perhaps the idea that games may help educate more effectively than simply giving people information straight out is counter-intuitive to some. However, our sometimes quirky human psychology does play a major role in how we learn, and we cannot ignore it if we hope to teach effectively. Teaching and psychology (particularly child psychology) have a great deal of overlap, and the teachers of the future may just benefit from being part teacher, part psychologist, and part gamer. I believe that only by tying the three together can we reach as many children as possible, as often as possible, and have both teachers and students enjoy the experience.  

The Masculine, The Feminine, and The In-Between

  A deep part of who we are, how we define ourselves, is defined by our gender. Gender is sometimes synonymous with our sex, either male or female, but it is also defined by how we see ourselves, how we feel, and in this sense there are many more than two options. The number of genders varies in various languages from 2 to 20, a reflection of the fact that there are many of us who do not define ourselves in black and white terms. Even a cursory study of human sexuality will reveal that we as a species simply do not experience gender exclusively in this way, and when we try to define it as such, it should be obvious that we miss a large part of the picture. Studying psychology and sociology has made it very clear to me that rather than a dichotomy, our gender identities exist on a continuum, and while there are some who see themselves as existing on one end of this continuum or the other, a great many of us fall somewhere in between. I have of course known my share of those who define themselves as exclusively heterosexual, but I have also known many others that do not: typically “straight” people who occasionally enjoy experimentation or even relationships with the same gender, fluid bisexuals, those who have exclusively same-sex relationships, transgendered, transsexual, people who have changed how they define themselves over time...the list goes on and on, with the types of relationships and gender definitions varying both from person to person and culture to culture. The idea of black-and-white gender identity is as antiquated as black-and-white television.

  Historically, in many western cultures, those individuals who did not fit into traditional gender roles have been shoe-horned into one, or marginalized, existing in somewhat isolated enclaves. This is partly to escape the gender stereotyping that habitually happens in society at large, and partly because of the human desire to be around those who understand us, and share in our experiences. Because of this, many societies have developed under the erroneous impression that “non-traditional” gender identities don't really exist (this is certainly a predominant mentality here in Japan), or that they represent only a tiny fraction of the population, who needn't be recognized. I can say with confidence that if one takes into account all non-traditional gender definitions, their percentage of the population rises well into double digits.

  Some societies, rather than ignore or persecute this portion of their population, have chosen to recognize and even appreciate them. A well-known example are the Fa'afafine of Polynesia, who are biologically male, but dress and behave in a manner considered typically female. They are considered a third gender, and suffer no societal stigma whatsoever. They often serve important roles within their families, helping take care of children and sharing in other household responsibilities. The existence of such cultures serve as a strong counter-argument to any who would claim that accepting sexual diversity is somehow corrosive to the fabric of society as whole.

  Western culture is now coming to terms with the reality of alternative gender identities, and has made great leaps over the past few decades, but there is still much to be done. Recognition is one thing, and this has certainly occurred at record pace, but full equality is the only way to ensure that everyone can fully contribute to society. Whenever it happens, equal rights enrich societies in countless ways, as we have seen first in the struggle for women's rights, and later in the struggle for racial equality. A balanced playing field ensures that societies can work together more cohesively, that time and resources aren't wasted on scapegoating and persecution, and that everyone has the same opportunities to improve both themselves and the community in which they live. Today, many forms of discrimination are still legal both in the West and in other parts of the world, and it is time to grow out of this pointless, wasteful and distasteful habit.

  In my generation, I realize that I am largely preaching to the converted. Exposure to alternative genders in the media has washed away so much of the ignorance that used to exist, it really has changed the way we think. So much of the prejudice that used to exist was simply due to many people not knowing anyone who defined themselves outside of stereotypical gender roles, but now, people recognize that they are our brothers, our sisters, our neighbours, our friends. They are part of our families. They are just like anyone else in all the ways that really matter. I am confident that we will discard these old prejudices just as we have discarded so many others, and be better for it. My own experiences tell me that parents are learning from their children in this instance, and that a broader definition of love is beginning to cross over generational lines. In some places, the vast majority already fully supports equality, and wonders why we bother quibbling over the issue when there are so many more important matters to deal with. I am confident that with a little hard work, this attitude can spread.

  Is this all part of the “gay agenda”? In a word, no. To call it that is to misunderstand it. This is a civil rights movement, no different than any other. Homosexuals (or any other gender minority, for that matter) do not have a plan to indoctrinate young people, or exert control over other people's lives – that's religion you're thinking of. For a long time the majority of people's prejudice against alternative gender identities sprang from religious doctrines, and where prejudice is still found today, it is reliably in places that are highly religious. Thankfully, there is a new wave of reason taking hold, even in places where there was previously little hope of independent, rational thought on such a topic. With increasingly free access to information, people can hear both sides of the argument, and make more informed decisions. They see beyond what they are told to believe, and use their own judgement, which, rather unsurprisingly to me, generally leads them toward basic human compassion and understanding. There will always be those who look to blame others for their problems, or to attack what they don't understand, but now the world can see this for the ugliness that it is, and for the suffering that it causes. As a species, we are growing, we are opening our eyes, and learning to see just how beautiful and diverse the world can be when you can see in more than just black and white.  

Our Generation's Cause

 By now, most of us recognize that our planet is facing environmental catastrophe in the coming century. It's not a pleasant thought, but at this point a vast majority of us have come to terms with this inconvenient truth, and those who deny it in the face of overwhelming scientific consensus seem increasingly out of touch with reality. The public now recognizes that those who do so typically do so either because they have personal, vested interests in fossil fuel use, or because they are paranoid conspiracy theorists who place little value in science. The time to argue the existence of climate change is done, and it is clearly time to act. My generation largely came to terms with this years ago; we have adopted this cause as our own, and now it is simply a matter of getting everyone else on board.

 Those of us who are now picking up the reigns of power from the Baby Boomers recognize that it will be up to us to clean up the mess that they have left us. This is not to say that it has been exclusively the fault of the previous generation that we are currently standing on a climatic knife edge – everyone has had a part to play since the time of the Industrial Revolution. However, the insatiable lust for economic growth that has driven the previous generation, and the willingness to sacrifice our long-term prosperity for their own short-term gains, has left deeper scars on the world than any other generation has ever inflicted. It will take a change in our thinking, and most likely a new generation at the helm, to undo many of the policies and practices that have lead us to this point. The entire system that has been engineered to bring us to this point is deeply flawed, and so we must be unafraid to question it on a fundamental level. Capitalism itself, which at its core is driven by consumption, teaches us that this is the only way to find fulfilment, but many now recognize how deeply flawed this mentality is, and how destructive its ramifications can be. Yes, a free market offers an explosion of choice that a Communist state cannot, and for this it has been celebrated for the past century, but we let this obscure our ability to see its flaws. As a result, they have run rampant, and today we are facing the hard consequences. Perhaps it is because of this that we are starting to recognize where improvements must be made, and we are mustering the nerve to make them, in spite of the challenges that this may pose.

 We need not grow our civilization at the expense of the environment...indeed, we can no longer afford to. This is at the core of what we are now learning, and as a result, technologies and social policies are emerging that look to stimulate growth in sustainable ways. Nature provides us with many solutions and alternatives, but only recently have we been driven to consider them. Now that we are, we are discovering that they do work in practice, and that if we can only wean ourselves from the poisoned teat of the oil industry, we will survive and flourish. In the end, our ability to do so boils down to 3 factors: resources, energy, and the political will to adapt quickly as better means of producing both are discovered. It is only the latter that we are currently lacking.

 As it happens, technology is increasingly able to make better use of the resources we have, with innovations announced every week. Scientists have developed innovative ways to extract resources from environments previously considered too hostile (including asteroids), make consumer goods more biodegradable, create valuable resources from what were previously considered waste materials, and process those wastes too toxic for recycling into inert and harmless by-products. There are technologies for high-efficiency water purification and desalination with a minimal energy cost, for farming vast amounts of produce indoors without the need to clear forests for farm land, and for producing animal protein synthetically, without the need for factory farming. If these were all widely implemented, all of humanity's basic needs could be accommodated, at a fraction of the economic and environmental costs that it would cost in today's terms.

 Perhaps it is energy however that is the more fundamental part of this equation, as all of our technology and innovation must have reliable and non-polluting energy sources if we are to have any hope of sustainability. A society can remake itself with clean and energy efficient homes and businesses, but if the power plants that fuel them spew toxins into the atmosphere, all this does little good. Luckily, science is advancing rapidly in this area as well. Today, the options are many and rapidly increasing in terms of how to draw energy from our environment, and most of these options become more efficient with each passing year. Enough sunlight falls on the surface of the Earth every hour to satisfy global energy needs for an entire year, and we are beginning to unlock this potential, but in addition there is wind, geo-thermal, biofuels, nuclear fission, and the holy grail, nuclear fusion. If we were to fashion region-specific energy plans with tailor-made combinations of these technologies, in tandem with legislation mandating energy-efficient consumer devices and energy-efficient manufacturing processes, our global energy woes would soon be over. While there is no single substitute in weaning ourselves from fossil fuels (yet), it does become possible with a more diverse approach, utilizing every innovation at hand. This way, if a certain strategy or technology becomes more advanced and desirable, a country need not completely overhaul a power grid to embrace this technology, but may instead merely shift the mix to include a higher proportion as time goes on. Eventually, fusion promises to supply humanity with near infinite power at minimal cost, but until then a diverse energy mix would be a wise strategy.

 Nuclear fission power has been demonized, but it is an option that we cannot afford to reject based on fear alone, if we hope to bridge the gap to the perfection of fusion. The media enjoys playing up the dangers of fission in order to gain publicity, but despite all the media attention given to incidents such as those at Chernobyl and Fukushima, there are far, far fewer deaths attributable to nuclear power than there are to coal and oil. Furthermore, the newest generation of reactors are orders of magnitude safer than those of thirty years ago, often running on entirely different nuclear fuels. Thorium reactors, for example, have a number of advantages over traditional uranium or plutonium-based reactors. They cannot be used to create weapons-grade material, they have zero chance of meltdown, and thorium is widely available. It is theorized that widespread conversion to thorium reactors would lead to complete energy independence in any country that did so. Nonetheless, they are merely one option in a broad palette of alternative options to fossil fuels, each of which should be explored fully.

 To do all this, of course, requires the aforementioned political will. In a perfect world, politicians would always have the interests of the public in mind, but unfortunately we don't live in that world. In many places, due to the influence of the marketplace and of lobby groups, politicians must think about their own bottom line if they want to win elections, and as such, corporate interests often trump public ones. This is simply unavoidable in a capitalist system, and so although maintaining a healthy society requires the ability to adapt to new technologies quickly, old systems are often left until they stagnate, because vested corporate interests fight any change that they cannot profit from. This simple fact sums up the essence of why corporate interests have no place in the public sphere, near essential services, or mixing with politics in general. Private profit, for them, will always come before the public good, and in an individual (which corporations insist they are), we would describe this as sociopathy. I wouldn't vote for a sociopath, I wouldn't want one talking in the ear of any politician I do vote for, and I certainly wouldn't want one making public policy. True progress is going to require striking out in new directions, not dwelling in the past, and it is my hope that the next generation will be the one capable of truly understanding that. If our political systems are stagnating, then we, the public, must become involved and force change, or risk watching as our societies collapse under the weight of their own decadence and complacency.  

 I don't want to sound like a downer - I'm truly hopeful that we can bring about change, but we must face the hard consequences of inaction if we are to be motivated to do so. We can't afford to rest on our laurels anymore in the Western world, and as the first generation to face a poorer economic outlook than the previous one, we should understand this. If we want prosperity, we have to fight for it, and recognize that true, long-term prosperity is synonymous with sustainability.